Irvine resigns thread

[SeaJay]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...


SeaJay:

Your parsing out sections of the DMCA without reference to the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C.

I wasn't talking about the Copyright Act of 1976... I was responding to the subject which someone else brought up... The DMCA.

...But in response to your reference to the Copyright Act of 1976, I've made my points above.

The Copyright Act of 1976 did not mention anything about the Internet... It simply wasn't widely used in 1976. In fact, it didn't exist as we know it today.

...Of course, later section 512 was added... Which LIMITS "copyright infringement." There are still no laws regarding copyright specifically, and copyright law as it applies to the Internet is borrowed from other mediums... Which is vague at best, and nonexistent in most cases.

Works stored electronically are sufficiently fixed to be subject to copyright.

That's a matter of opinion. Please show me where a jury decided that a plaintiff could successfully sue someone for posting a link or posting something to a public forum, quoting another individual.

The DMCA does not legitimize unauthorized copying. It limits the liability of ISP's; however, it does not alter the fundamental rights of authors to protect their work.

Of course, that's correct... And I'm not debating that.

However, there's much more to this mix - as you would know if you were a lawyer - than simply suing someone for posting a link, reiterating a properly cited email, etc.

A case could be made regarding fair use. However, that is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove. Moreover, works that are subject to a fair use defense are still protected.

I see you are well read on the Internet... Since your words come almost verbatum from another website (do you have permission from the original author to reiterate them??) That doesn't change the law, however. That's one person's opinion. To really know what the law says regarding the application of copyright law to the Internet, you'd have to cite some case studies and show their outcomes.

...And I don't know of anyone who's been successfully sued for posting a link or forwarding an email or even posting someone else's quoted words to a public forum. That's just hogwash.

This discussion started when Mr. Painter incorrectly claimed that items posted on the Internet are not entitled to copyright protection because they have entered the public domain. That statement is not correct.

...According to the website that you're getting that information from.

The bottom line is that if you placed this case in front of a jury, they would find that when someone posts something to an Internet website or to a public forum, they have assumed liability for that post. That is, they are fully aware of the fact that their words were to be made public, and they will not win in a case where they complain that their words were freely dispersed.

Show me a case where someone sued someone else successfully for posting to an online forum or forwarding an email.

If you don't believe me, call up the CEO of Napster and ask him what he thinks.

I haven't talked to him... But I can tell you the outcome of that case. The fact that you don't understand the verdict shows me that you may not be what you claim to be.

The people who brought suit against Napster did not win the case. You seem to think that they did. Sorry, even that blatant "copyright infringement" as you would call it wasn't enforcable.

However, Napster was a small company with no profits to show. Defending itself was hellaciously expensive, which of course, nearly broke them. This alone was "punishment" enough.

It was decided by both parties - with the judge's recommendation - that Napster would change the way it operated. What you have today is a Napster which did exactly what it promised. The change was enough to satisfy the copyright owners, and it has severely crippled Napster.

Nonetheless, for you to claim that case as a success for copyright suit is simply incorrect.

 

[Genesis]

What the Napster case proves is that lawyers can (and do) beat firms and individuals over the head with threats and lawsuits, and irrespective of whether they actually prove their case or not, they get the "results" they want.

Of course, if you are honest, you must admit that a bank robber or extortionist uses exactly the same sort of tactic to get the "results" they want too......

 

[SeaJay]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...


You've got it backwards. I showed you the scope of copyright above. Note the scope.

I'm aware of the scope. What you're saying is that that law applies to everything, even the Internet... Which wasn't in existence at the time.

We could argue the logic of that law, but why? Show me a case where someone was successfully sued for posting a link to a board, or forwarding an email.

What's your point? Section 512 limits the liability of service providers. You are a service provider. The person who copies a work is not a service provider. Section 512 doesn't protect illegal copying.

I never said it did.

What I said was, "Section 512 is the only place where the Internet and "online" is mentioned... And it's in regards to the limitation of liability, not the INCREASE in liability."

Finally, yes, SeaJay, I'm a lawyer. More particularly, I specialize in intellectual property and commercial law. I'm also a Adjunct Professor of Law at UConn.

I have a difficult time believing that you can sit here on this board if you are a lawyer and an adjunct professor... Aren't you a bit busy?

Me... This is what I do for a living. Between "fires" I have minutes to burn here and there.

Why aren't you in court today or teaching a class?

What year are you in?

Lol... My 14th. I've also studied Marketing at Rutgers University, Physics at Rutgers University, Computer Science at the University of Arizona, and now shooting for an MBA at the University of South Carolina. My next subject of study will probably be Marine Sciences.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Here is the cite to the Napster decisions. A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., N.D.Cal.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 896, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780, affirmed in part, reversed in part 239 F.3d 1004, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1729, on remand 2001 WL 227083, on remand 2001 WL 777005, on remand 2001 WL 789461.

While the original injunction was overbroad, the fact remains that Napster was enjoined from violating the copyrights. This was the correct result.

Your suggestion that the Copyright Act doesn't apply to the Internet because it wasn't around in 1976 is incorrect. "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. " 17 U.S.C. s. 102.

In other words, Section 102 specifically contemplates that new media of expression will be developed.

Do you seriously dispute that internet postings can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device?

Regardless, the Supreme Court has recognized that unauthorized reproduction of works on the Internet violates the Copyright Act. New York Times Company, Inc. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).

In Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1321 (N.D. Ca. 1995), a church successfully enjoined the defendant from posting the church's doctrinal documents on the internet.

I've got time for this because its more fun than dictating a relatively boring cease and desist letter and I'm not teaching again until next semester.

 

[SeaJay]

"Show me the money."

Show me a case where someone was successfully sued for copyright infringement by forwarding an email or posting a link.

The rest is semantics. We could argue all day.

"Show me the money."

 

[Mo2vation]

for the highest WPP (words per post) of any thread I've come in a long time.

From Irvine to Napster... there's a segue for ya.

I'd throw in more words to try to fit in...but I'm not that smart.

K

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Get back on topic. Forwarding a link is not the issue. Whether internet postings are protected by copyright is the issue. They are for the reasons above. End of discussion.

 

[cornfed]

Y'all need to read SeaJay's signature...

 

[SeaJay]

<sigh>

Then perhaps you and I disagree on what the focus of this conversation is.

My perspective was that I was tired of hearing you (and Jonnythan) whine about copyright infringement.

You say "it's the law." I disagree. But even if that debate isn't settled, I still say "I've yet to see an example of enforcement, even if you're right."

Working with you is like working with a Rottweiler that sits behind a neighbor's fence. You sure do make a lot of noise, and yes, I hear you... But that's not going to keep me from playing in my back yard.

Tell ya what... I'll throw you a bone here... Jonnythan's got nude pictures on his website with no model release form. It's unclear as to whether or not he was the photographer. If he wasn't, and he does not have expressed, written permission from the photographer, then he's in violation of copyright laws. If he was the photographer, then he needs a model release form, which proves their age (so as to circumvent child pornography laws) and that he has permission to use their image on his website. He has none of the above. Either way, he's breaking the law.

Now, go git 'em, boy...

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Well, SeaJay, for a substantial retainer (probably around 20k) and a signed client agreement, I'll be happy to look at it.

My original point was that posting something on the Net doesn't place it in the public domain. I've yet to see anything that says otherwise.

Incidentally, I acknowledged that it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to enforce the copyright in my first post on the subject. That was before I found Yahoo's copyright policy. Now, if the client cared enough, I'd probably send Yahoo the letter and deal with it that way.

We've had good luck using Ebay's trademark infringement procedures to shut down auctions that infringe our clients' marks, so I wonder if Yahoo copyright protection would work as well.

If you're tired of discussing this, then stop reading and stop posting incorrect information.